What are you replacing Efke 25 with?

[Jiri Vasina]

Well, I don't think I had any problems with Adox/Efke 25 and pinholes or such. And neither did I notice any pinholes in the NP15. I very rarely have issues with Fomapan 100 - very rarely, I could count the afflicted sheets on one (maimed? ) hand, and I have shot upwards of 600 sheets of Foma 100 in different sizes. Of Wephota NP15, I have so far shot 150+ sheets, and did not notices anything. So nothing wrong. And would recommend that film...

Jiri

[Lachlan 717]

The latest Freestyle email is suggesting some new slow sheet film.

[wallrat]

I emailed them a couple of weeks ago and linked back to this thread. I made the case for slow sheet film. The reply said that they would look into it. I'm not sure it had anything to do with the news, but it definitely didn't hurt.

[Lachlan 717]

In case you don't get the newsletter, here's what I'm referring to:

"With the closure of the Fotokemika factory in Croatia, we have received many calls and emails inquiring as to what choices are available for slow speed sheet film besides Ilford Pan F. Adox CMS 20 II will be available in sheet film sizes. In addition, Adox and Rollei are working on a new 25 ISO film available in all popular formats including 35mm, 120 and sheet film sizes. We will keep you updated as to the availability of these films."

[wallrat]

I wasn't aware you could get PanF in sheet film sizes? I thought MF was the largest.

[Tony Evans]

Me too.

[wallrat]

That has to be a typo. Either they are going to release it (That would be nice even give the differences between it and Efke) or they meant FP4 (which isn't really slow).

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/...26+White+Films

-Bill

[polyglot]

Pan-F in 4x5 would be a wonderful, wonderful thing, and I'm gonna keep saying it until they notice and coat some

I do realise the base thickness difference and market-size issues here, but I'd prefer Pan-F over FP4 in sheet sizes.

[Lachlan 717]

Pan-F in 4x5 would be a wonderful, wonderful thing, and I'm gonna keep saying it until they notice and coat some

I do realise the base thickness difference and market-size issues here, but I'd prefer Pan-F over FP4 in sheet sizes.

Simon Galley (Ilford/Harman) posted his thoughts on running Pan F sheet film on APUG back at the start of 2006:

the coating would need to be on sheet film base, minimum coating regimes would not make the product viable as waste would be astronomic and the required stock produced would take too long to sell and would consequently go out of date.

I wonder how the [current] lack of competition affects these considerations? I wonder whether Pan F sheet could be added to the annual ULF offering…

[polyglot]

Yep, I totally understand why they don't do it. An Annual Run arrangement would suffice for me but that doesn't solve Ilford's problem: the Annual Run is just a special-case of cutting without coating emulsions on different bases, just cutting the same thick base (already coated to make common sizes 4x5 and 8x10) to a bunch of odd sizes, so there's no increase in waste.

I'm puzzled about the concept of Pan-F expiring though... it seems to keep really well to me and maybe Ilford might consider extending their definition of "expired", especially if they're freezing it before sale. Its only problem that I've noticed is latent image stability, but I would expect Simon to understand their films far better than I do.

Doesn't mean I will stop wanting it. But if we're being realistic with ourselves, there's probably not much that Pan-F could do in LF sizes that FP4 can't, particularly if you're like me and can't print optically to stupid sizes like 30x40.